The story of marriage is a very long one indeed. If you have ever tried to find original intent of marriage and how marriage came about, it is a formidable search. I have come to the conclusion the best anyone can do is search original intent in one area of the world in one culture.
If you trace early origins, some are gender neutral, most are not. I would expect this. There are several areas of the ancient world where same sex marriage is recorded (Greece & China are two of several), but it seems most original intent centers around (1) fathering of children by one man from the woman to make sure they are his (2) control over the women (not my words) (3) ability to transfer property through heirs.
Arranged marriages are replete throughout history. In Western civilization, 'love' as a part or determiner of marriage has been traced by historians to around the twelfth century. Some credit troubadours ('trobairitz' for female) who were lyric poetic performers.
The development of marriage in Christian tradition is a long story in itself. St. Paul stated marriage should be entered into 'only as a last resort'. St. Augustine's belief was for it to show love of the church. Marriage was officially laid out in the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
If you look at the past, as I said would be expected, the bond of marriage mostly relates to a man and a woman. If not stated as man and woman, many times it is insinuated by words such as 'children'. In biblical terms it might be stated 'go forth and multiply'.
What we do know from the past is that marriage is a man made institution in all cultures to take care of problems which have arisen. To me, that means it is similar in origin to creating 'rule of law'.
Marriage in the modern world in any location I know of is centered around being between a man and a woman and heavily mired in religion. I don't believe anyone would disagree with this. It also means an attempt to institute nationwide same gender marriage would be a long and very emotional battle. If ever.
I have only talked to two gay people about this. Both were highly educated women I know well and are not companions. I asked them why gay people might concentrate on civil unions for equal rights under the law first, then later perhaps under better circumstances attempt legal marriage. Both told me they did not want marriage and did not personally know any gay person who did. This made me automatically wonder what percentage of gay people do desire marriage.
I personally am not for or against gay marriage. If the numbers are right and we have a fifty per cent divorce rate, think of what the percentage would be if every person who wanted a divorce got one. That says little for the 'sacredness' of marriage. It also says a lot about how much serious thought goes into getting married in the first place. Then there are the children who suffer for the broken marriages. And I am one who is guilty of this.
Where would I get the right to block other people of same gender who wished to get married? It is a cultural institution that men and women cannot hold together. When I mentioned including those who wanted (or really needed) a divorce, would failure be seventy-five percent? Ninety per cent?
Most against gay marriage will fall back on religion or "it's not natural". Well, it's not natural to get a divorce either. It's not natural to split a child's family, like I did. And your belief isn't everyone's belief.
I do not find homosexuality pleasing in the least. Truth be known, and it is about to, I find some of the acts of same gender sex to be rather disgusting. I also find some of the acts straight people do in sex to be rather disgusting. Are those acts 'natural'? Are those acts 'natural' because they are between straight people? I don't think so.
What I am for is equal rights under the law. Gay people should have the right to seal their love for each other and their property with each other through a piece of paper, the same piece of paper we straight ones screw up so valiantly.
beyondtheveil posted on Nov 05, 2009
| views: 200
Comments
-
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 05, 2009....
A wise and sensible look at the issue. I can't add much more to this.
I think people should be able to have equal footing under the law when it comes to taxes, estate law, insurance coverage, etc. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is really none of my business. If a crazy cat lady can leave all her money to her cats, why can't one man leave all his stuff to anyone he chooses? It's all very silly.
Let them be as miserable as everybody else, I say.
-
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 05, 2009....
Very comprehensive and well thought out. I agree with all the thoughts laid out here. I live with a gay couple and have talked around the edges of this issue with them. The feeling I get is that the act of marriage is not so much the goal as the ability to bring their lover into their life legally and socially. I can't argue against such a basic need. -
ALIENated said on Nov 06, 2009....
I do not find homosexuality pleasing in the least.
So, are you ready to allow polygamy? Are you ready to look the other way on pedophilia? Can John marry his sister Jenny? Can Tom marry his daughter? Fred wants to marry his goat. Is that OK?
I know that sounds silly, but silly things happen when you open a can of worms. Keep thinking dude. You are far from done.
-
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 06, 2009....
Neither children or animals can give informed consent to marry so your argument is stupid. As for marrying siblings and other relatives, it's happened historically. The only reason we don't allow it is for health of the offspring, not some supposed immorality. Polygamy is just leagalized cheating, which is something that happens a lot. (the cheating) Give a reasonable argument. -
ALIENated said on Nov 06, 2009....
I did not invent the can of worms, it just exists. There are reasons we have one man / one woman marriages, like it or not.
-
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 06, 2009....
yes, there are reasons, but none of them have to do with logic or moral rightness. -
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 06, 2009....
Well that didn't take long to bring in the animals... -
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 06, 2009....
@ Grape - are you calling me an animal? seems harsh. -
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 06, 2009....
uni: No no no no no... What I meant was Alien bringing up people marrying animals in the gay marriage debate, not you. :)
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 06, 2009....
@ Grape - whew! I didn't think I had gone that far. Yes, it did seem kind of premature to bring in the barnyard. -
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 06, 2009....
It's a pretty common tactic used by the anti-gay. Though I happen to think that them considering other people of the same sex as being equal to animals really say more about them than the ones they're accusing. :) -
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 06, 2009....
never considered that angle. It is pretty insulting. I guess when your argument lacks real back bone you have to resort to animals and such. -
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 06, 2009....
Well, it certainly cranks the shock value up a notch or two, dunnit? -
beyondtheveil said on Nov 06, 2009....
Wow.....I certainly hope people don't think I'm for polygamy, pedophilia, marrying your daughter, or fucking goats. An example like that is similar to having the FDA regulate our food, to them making us eat decaying rats, if you see what I mean.
I don't understand why a large percentage of the population contains such hatred of another percentage of the population because of a mate (human, by the way) choice, to the point of denying the same rights of property or bonding a relationship in the same way.
When you get down to the nuts and bolts, marriage is a contract. A legal contract. One can add as much romance and sentimentality as you wish, as I do, but it's still a contract.
-
D6fer said on Nov 06, 2009....
I really have no problem with the legal end of homosexual marriage, but i think the can of worms involves the separation of church and state. Churches should never be forced to perform same sex marriages.....not that this is where it is going, but there does seem to be an awfully large anti-christian movement out there that would like to see that.
I don't think that young people today think about marriage too much.....patience levels are way too low now days......fast food.....microwaves.....instant gratification.......when was the last time you wrote someone a letter?
Hookup.....breakup....lets get married....goodbye.
-
beyondtheveil said on Nov 06, 2009....
d6- I can't see churches being forced to marry anyone. A Justice of the Peace can refuse and that's a part of government. Also, I would guess that gays are some of the more staunch supporters of separation of church and state. It is churches and the conservative element who are the danger of merging church and state.
From what I've read, you may well have a point about the younger generation.
-
D6fer said on Nov 06, 2009....
I guess it depends on who is in charge at the time where the danger lies......right now, I think that it is the government that is more likely to manipulate the church or to make policies that go against the church....for example....there is a new dollar coin that was introduced that no longer reads "In God we trust"
It wasn't hurting anyone by having it on there, and now they have alienated a large percentage of the population by taking it off.
-
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 06, 2009....
D6 - what has the new dollar got to do with same sex marriage? Don't go off subject. -
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 06, 2009....
Is that like saying "e pluribus unum"(out of many, one) is in support of polygamy? :) -
beyondtheveil said on Nov 06, 2009....
d6- I am for separation of church and state but don't nitpick. Some see a danger in that attitude on both sides. We have a reasonable separation and I'm happy with it. I've said before, even being agnostic I don't mind at all having "in God we trust" on coins and currency, or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance even though it was written in 1892 without those words which were added in 1954.
I also don't mind having the ten commandments at the entrance of a government building. These are reminders and a statement of their belief and nothing more in a way. Most people in this country are Christians and I can respect and understand their desires in this way, harming no one.
I don't know much about the new dollar. Some in govt wanted to replace the paper dollar with a coin to save half a billion to the mint, but the people didn't care for the idea. Four designs were submitted in 2006 and the Washington design accepted in 2007.They may have had the intention of releasing all four over time. Regardless of the history, whatever they mint will probably be for collectors. The mint can make money that way. Considering the date of acceptance, I don't know who "they" were who decided on the design.
-
beyondtheveil said on Nov 06, 2009....
unique- I like to talk about coins so I just went ahead with it.
grape- Ha! I would never have thought of that.
-
ALIENated said on Nov 06, 2009....
... them considering other people of the same sex as being equal to animals ...
Well, that did not take long ... to start the name calling and "you must be stupid to believe that" routine. Of course, that is the usual reaction when people hear something they do not want to hear. You have to forgive those of us who lived in America before everyone was brainwashed by the liberal news media 24 X 7.
-
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 06, 2009....
It was your cousin Fred wanting to marry his goat. I didn't bring that up.
Perhaps I misspoke. I'm sure you will agree that (to you), a marriage between two men of the same species is just as abhorrent as a man marrying a female pig. Double jeopardy for a man marrying a man pig, right?
See, I'm not for inter-species civil unions. I don't think rich old ladies should be able to give her money to her cats. I think that's totally bogus. I am, however, for recombinant dna experiments, cybrids.
Two guys want to live together, share a house, pay taxes together, adopt a gaggle of poor kids together, grow old together, leave their crap to each other when they die, I don't care. It's none of my business. Leave them alone. Let them be just as happy or as miserable as anybody else without this crap on top of it.
-
ALIENated said on Nov 07, 2009....
I agree with your last paragraph. Those two guys are called roommates who may or may not have homosexual sex. Let them talk with a lawyer and set up the legal stuff and stop causing all this trouble.
If you allow marriage to be something besides one man and one woman, what reason do I give the man that wants to marry four women? There is no good reason if we allow ... whatever. God does not give us guidelines for no good reason. Actions have consequences. How many homos do you know that seem to have all their oars in the water? Actions have consequences.
We need to get back to asking "why" instead of "why not". If we have no rules, we have no civilization. Wild animals have no rules, except maybe kill or be killed. Is that the level to which we want to degenerate? Stop laughing and look around and what this kind of liberal thinking has given us. Our country is going in the dumper because too many are asking why not. Everyone in the 60s wanted legalized pot. Look at what that kind of thinking has gotten us. Actions have consequences. God can see to the end of these scenarios and He warns us for a reason. Civilizations have not heeded His warnings before, and where are they now ... in the dumper.
-
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 07, 2009....
"You have to forgive those of us who lived in America before everyone was brainwashed by the liberal news media 24 X 7"really? You mean generations of my family going back to colonial days makes me somehow the new comer? I dare say your family doesn't go back any further. Brain washed by the liberal media? Ummmm, I'm a moderate conservative who THINKS! OMG I must be your worst nightmare. -
beyondtheveil said on Nov 07, 2009....
unique- My wife and I consider ourselves the same as you. -
ALIENated said on Nov 07, 2009....
Sorry you are so angry. Condoning sin does that to people, and they lash out and start calling everyone names who disagree with them. I was talking about people living today that go back before everyone was being brainwashed by the politically correct news media. I would think you are either a moderate or a conservative, but approving of homo marriage actually makes you a liberal, at least on that issue.
-
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 07, 2009....
well, since I don't consider same sex marriage or homosexuality a sin, I don't technically condone it. And ... name calling is only name calling when there is no validity to the name called. Also, one political position that may differ from party lines does not automatically make my entire political make up shift. I think if you look at the voting polls you will see that what I believe is not an extreme view. If in california it so closely passed that means there was a large majority of people who shared my view. Liberal views would mean that I held a position that much fewer people shared. Sorry alienated, your arguments don't seem to be well thought out logical conclussions so much as an emotionally based opinion. -
ALIENated said on Nov 07, 2009....
Why would you not consider homosexuality a sin? All religions do, as far as I know. The Holy Bible is pretty clear on the matter unless you are looking for loopholes and using weird translations of words. And most translations even lighten up the meanings. Are you an atheist?
I am not sure what your name calling statement means. Name calling is name calling. What I mean by name calling is, someone makes a comment about the topic at hand and someone else retorts that the person is fat, or ugly, or the ever popular, you have to be a moron to believe that. I think that people are entitled to their opinions no matter how wrong they are. I just like to point out that they might want to give it some more thought. I think younger people have been brainwashed with a lot of politically correct crapola over the last couple of decades. They have not heard much truth from the news media or Hollywood.
And most issues today are about 50 / 50, give or take a few points. However, that has nothing to do with right and wrong. It is just public opinion, what people believe to be right and wrong. That really means nothing to me. Like your parents probably told you ... if all your friends were jumping off a cliff, would you join them? Even if a majority of the country agreed with homo marriage, I would not because it is wrong.
-
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 08, 2009....
Sin? What's all this talk of sin?
See, neither the state nor the church can make you behave. The onus is upon the individual. If the church made you behave, if the state made you behave, you're nothing but a clockwork orange. Haven't you read the book?
Individual responsibility negates the necessity for legislation. The government shouldn't tell a person how to live their lives. The government should protect and tax the lives. Provide health care if it can, though that's a lofty goal and a tall order.
-
ALIENated said on Nov 08, 2009....
UI said she did not consider homosexuality a sin. I was addressing that. The government legislates morality all the time. If enough people decide murder is not a sin (say of older people that drain healthcare funds), do we legalize murder? Most people who believe in God consider homosexuality to be a sin (or they should base on their religious books -- the Holy Bible, the Tora, the Koran, etc.), yet we have agreed to look the other way. Can anything, no matter how immoral, become legal? Where do we draw the line?
-
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 08, 2009....
You mean like honor killings?
I believe in that. If those bitches don't want to get honor killed, they shouldn't have been acting like whores, amirite?
The government does legislate morality. It's because people decided to give up their individual responsibility, have the nanny state do it for them. Doesn't mean that the government should. People have long forgotten the function of a social contract. I'm gonna stop talking about this before I sound like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat.
Just leave "teh gays" alone. Jesus Christ, man.
-
ALIENated said on Nov 08, 2009....
Not sure what honor killings you are talking about. If it is something in Muslim land, I would not dare try to make sense of it. I am just saying that most basic laws come from or at least agree with religious writings and beliefs. I do leave the homos alone. I just wish they would return the favor and stop tearing our country apart. It is like I told someone once, if you think something is wrong and sinful, is it right to condone that act and be part of them committing sin and possibly doing something that is bad for them. If you have an alcoholic friend do you offer them a drink when they come over? Homosexuality, abortion, yadda, yadda, yadda. Real Christians have no choice but to warn others about sin. They have no right to try to beat them into submission (we will leave the to Muslims), but they are obligated to warn people about sin. If you had a bomb tied to your back, would you want me to just leave you alone? If you were drowning in a car in the lake, would you want me to just leave you alone? To real Christians, homosexuality is the same thing. Leaving them alone is not the loving thing to do in the eyes of the Christian. Just because so many have decided that homosexuality is not a sin (with the help of the liberal median and Hollywood), does not mean that is true. I will take the word of the Holy Bible over popular opinion any day.
-
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 09, 2009....
One side of your mouth, you're saying that you're leaving them alone. Other side of your mouth, you're comparing a gay person to a person who's drowning. So which is it? Are you going to leave them alone, or are you going to save them?
Whatever happened to "judge not"? Or something about casting the first stone?
I don't know you from Adam, but I don't see you without sin. I don't know why. Call it a hunch.
The problem with X-tians is that their religion tells you to go out and spread the word, change people. Especially nowadays, without true cultivation of the self.
And which version of the holy bible will you take over popular opinion? Vulgata? King James? NRSV? Or perhaps Max Lucado's "The Message"?
I still hold by my belief that the onus to lead a life of whatever kind is upon the individual. Otherwise, we're not human, but biological machines, a clockwork orange.
-
ALIENated said on Nov 09, 2009....
I think we have all agreed to leave homos alone, but they will not leave us alone. All the sodomy laws have either been revoked or are being ignored. Now the majority of the population (as demonstrated in states like California and Maine) are asking homos to leave our traditional definition of marriage alone.
And you are right, there has only been one man to walk this earth who was without sin -- Jesus. You can find that in any of those bibles, I would bet. But, to answer your question, I like the New King James version (it leaves out the Shakespeare thees and thous). Some believe that translation is inspired. There are translations that have an agenda (like the Jehovah witness version) and use obscure translations of certain words to make the Bible agree with their philosophy. You can read pretty much any bible and get the big picture, but the bottom line is: love God and love your neighbor. However, loving someone does not mean you tollerate anything. Parents are raising horrible children these days because they think they are acting in a loving way. Is raising a monster that no one wants to be around a loving act? Neither is condoning sin. Trying to regulate homosexuality (other than maybe cases involving pedophilia) is a losing battle. It is like trying to regulate suicide -- the victim is committing the crime. However, to legitimize it as a society is a sin on a national level and our whole society will pay the price. The Bible does say "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). That applies to a nation that condones sin as well as to individuals who sin. I have a loose rule of thumb for judging right and wrong, things of God and things not of God. If something promotes life (like a man and a woman marrying and having children), it is right. If something promotes death (like abortion, euthenasia, or homosexuality), it is wrong. God promotes life. I think you know who promotes death. Take a look at the Democrat platform and tell me that it promotes life. If you say yes, I would say look again.
-
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 09, 2009....
Look. All I'm saying is that I'm having a hard enough time navigating through my own life, keeping my own house in order. I don't have time nor concern for what my neighbors are doing, let alone loving them.
Now here' the ironic part: People are more alienated than ever before, while being more connected than ever before. Neighbors don't love each other. They avoid each other's glances, give forced waves and smiles with gritted teeth. If you do love your neighbors, chances are, you're the only one.
You should absolutely be appalled if you're a true Christian. Of unfettered greed, of pride, of all 7 deadly sins.
-
ALIENated said on Nov 10, 2009....
People are more alienated than ever before ...
I would agree with that, and most of that ALIENation is probably caused by having to accept so many unnatural things as natural like abortion and homosexuality. There was a time in America that everyone pretty much held the same basic values and were pretty much agreed on what was right and wrong. If someone stepped outside the right into the wrong, they were swiftly hung from the nearest tree either by an angry mob or a jury of their piers (people who still knew right from wrong). We now live in an "anything goes" world where people say "why not" instead of "why". That all started in the 60s and is not a bad attitude in some cases (why not tear down the Berlin Wall, why not try to get people to stop smoking, why not outlaw drugs), but it is now being used on situations that we should be saying "why" instead of "why not" (why are there so many illegal immigrants, why should the government get bigger and bigger, control more of our lives, and tax us into poverty instead of assist us in getting wealthy). We all sin and should try our best to confront sin and deal with it. To me, homosexuality is no better than alcoholism -- someone is letting their sin ruin their lives and everyone's lives around them. I do not plan to hunt down homosexuals and try to get them to stop their practices any more than I would hunt down alcoholics and try to get them to stop drinking. However, I am not going to go out and vote for a law that claims alcoholism is just fine and that gives alcoholics special privileges.
-
beyondtheveil said on Nov 10, 2009....
alien- Every time I say 'the past was better', referring to your 'There was a time in America...' sentence, all one needs to do is read the past to heavily reconsider. -
GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 10, 2009....
Alien: I don't think anyone here is saying that "teh gays" are getting special privileges. In fact, I think all they want is to be treated like everyone else, be afforded the same rights under the law. The sanctity of marriage has already been tainted by the poor success rate of marriages in this country, as beyond so acutely pointed out on his post.
Here's the thing about groups like AA and NA. They demonize the substance, take away the responsibility from the individual. It isn't their fault, because they were under the influence. That sounds like special privileges to me.
I still don't think that the government should legislate morality. That's why segregation was wrong. Even though there was a time when race mixing was considered a sin. You don't still believe that, do you?
I can't believe you're so cavalier about lynch mobs and hanging people from a tree, let alone romanticize it.
beyond: The past of this country is mired in bloodshed. I think people have a tendency to white wash the past in an attempt to fit it into "the good ol' days".
-
ALIENated said on Nov 10, 2009....
Great liberal take on things. I think you hit all the high points. You must be using your handbook. What can I say. Bring it on ... anything goes. You have convinced me. We should definitely stop legislating morality. What to do first? Let me see. We are already murdering babies left and right. I guess we have to allow murder of any kind. That is coming if the healthcare bill gets passed, at least for older Americans. Murder is immoral, right? And open the prison gates and let those thieves go. No more arresting people for the immoral act of robbery. Is smoking immoral? No more smoke free buildings. Wait, someone remind me, what are laws about again? Right and wrong? Nope, not any more. Laws are about political correctness. You know, laws like hate crimes. (Why do we need those again? It seems like any crime is a hate crime or at least a hateful crime.) As far as the hanging business, I was contrasting the chasm between the past and the present (if you keep up, you know I am not too gung ho on capital punishment). But thanks for continuing to try to demonize me because I disagree with you. If marriage is so bad, why do you want it for homos? As I have said so many times, if homos are allowed to marry, there will be some new issue in no time because it is not about marriage. It is about trying to MAKE the majority believe the lie that the small homo minority has fallen for -- that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. That has never been true, it is not true now, and it never will be true no matter how many liberals go along with it.
-
GrapeKoolaid said 13 days ago....
Alien: The funny part of all this is, if every gay person came out at the same time, this wouldn't even be an issue. I don't think this is a left v. right argument. Heck, I'll even go out on a limb and say that the Republican party probably has more deranged closet fags than the Democrats. (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr. to name a few)
I do keep up with you, and I know that you're a conservative who's against capital punishment. Apparently, you don't keep up with me, because if you had, you'd know that I am a constitutional third positionist who doesn't agree with either parties. Yet you continue to call me a liberal, as if that's an insult or a dirty word.
While I agree that I do have some liberal tendencies when it comes to certain domestic issues, I have told you time and time again that I reject the basic premise of liberalism. That the basic tenets of liberalism reeks of racism.
I believe in total and complete decriminalization of all controlled substances. Yes. I believe in legalization. Why? Because I believe in personal responsibility. Since I believe that the gov't should only exist to protect rights and property, theft and robbery is obviously not cool. Two dudes wanting to start a family together? Not my deal. It shouldn't be your deal either.
Yes. Dead babies and capital murder. I support both.
Oh and I've done nothing to demonize you. You've done that with your own words, comparing a gay person to a drowning alcoholic who wants to marry goats. You did that.
-
ALIENated said 13 days ago....
... the Republican party probably has more deranged closet fags than the Democrats.
Ha ha ha. I hope you do not think that is true. Well, maybe the key word is "closet". Homos who also happen to be Republicans are not as out in the open with it, I would agree with that. But yes, when a homo is a Republicans he is also deranged. Not sure why, but you can bet the liberal media will be all over it.
... total and complete decriminalization of all controlled substances ... I believe in personal responsibility ...
Oh my. I believe in personal responsibility as well, but it is difficult to control yourself when you are hopped up on heroine or some other addictive substance. Sorry, but I lose all respect for the intelligence of anyone that believes in making drugs legal or abortion. Well, maybe not so much their intelligence as their boasts of being compassionate and caring about others. That is where liberalism goes haywire. Liberals (not necessarily you, evidently) claim to care for everyone, and to love everyone, and then promote crap that is bad for everyone. It is one thing to legalize booze (most people can handle an occasional drink). It is another thing to legalize crap that will physically addict anyone that tries it often enough. Wait, I see your plan. Legalize drugs and all the druggies will be dead before long and the problem goes away. Brilliant Da Vinci.
-
GrapeKoolaid said 12 days ago....
I'm not going to talk too much about decriminalization because that's not what this post is about. However, I will point out that while there will be a spike in usage after the initial decriminalization, I believe that it will plateau off eventually.
Alcohol's legal, but not everyone drinks, you know? Should be the same with drugs. Some people just are not going to do them whether they're legal or not.
Who has more faith in humanity? One that believes in personal responsibility? Or the one who believes that good behavior should be legislated?
-
ALIENated said 12 days ago....
You ether have laws or not. You cannot have it both ways. Laws are something we usually vote on or are passed by our representatives. My whole comment about brother / sister, man / goat, etc., marriages is that the majority has to decide on the definition of marriage. Do we want just any weird group of people changing the definition of marriage. It is easy enough to say that will not happen, but how can you be so sure. Once the flood gates are open, it is hard to close them again. That is part of the problem here. We stopped caring about whether people are practicing homosexuality and we have not heard the end of it yet. The phrase "give an inch, take a mile" comes to mind. Marriage is not like anything else. It is not slavery, which should be and was abolished. It is not this or that and should be treated like this or that. It is a unique thing. It is a sacred union of a man and a woman meant to produce and protect children. Just because modern society has made marriage more difficult, does not mean we should give up on it and start redefining it. It is pretty hard for a lot of people to resist all the temptation these days, and stay married. Not to mention that people are living longer and may not mature in a compatible way. I figure that the definition of marriage will be changed some day as we slide further into atheism in this country, but I guarantee you that it will return to one man and one woman when we dig our way out of the resulting rubble. Same sex marriage alone will not destroy this country, but marriage is one of the piers that form the foundation of this country, and, if removed, will eventually destroy our country.
-
GrapeKoolaid said 11 days ago....
Here's a map of divorce rates in the US by state. You'd think the red states would have a lower divorce rate, considering that they clamor about the sanctity of marriage and all that nonsense, but no. Not the case. Who'da thunk it? Apparently the perceptive folks at the Pew Research center is who.
Here's an article about a ten year old boy in Arkansas who refuses to pledge allegiance to a country that discriminates against gays from Huffington Post.
A 10 year old.
Before you start the "kid was brainwashed" argument, I'd like for you to look at a documentary called "Jesus Camp". Both sides are at it. Corrupting, brainwashing, educating, whatever you want to call it.
-
beyondtheveil said 10 days ago....
grape- Looking at your last two sentences, the thought crossed my mind that perhaps the "meaning of life" might be through religion, through politics, through education, and down to personal levels for everyone, simply control. -
ALIENated said 10 days ago....
I am not sure what your heterosexual marriage is not perfect so we should convert marriage to anything goes argument buys us. We could make that argument about almost anything. [your cause here] is bad so we should allow [some other cause here]. That is the same deal that is going on with the healthcare legislation. Liberal stinkin thinkin. Our healthcare system is not perfect so why not throw it out and let the government take it over and run it? ha ha ha. Yeah right, that will fix it.
Plus, why would we want to further degrade marriage considering the facts and figures you reference. How many people (men especially) are growing up in non-traditional families (one father and one mother) and then perpetuating that situation -- not taking care of their offspring.
As far as discrimination agaist homosexuals. That one just does not float. You are mixing two different things -- homosexual discrimination and redefining marriage. We have all kinds of special laws now (hate speech, etc.) that actually go overboard on NOT discriminating against homos. Are we discriminating against homos if we tell them they cannot drive on the wrong side of the road? Where does it stop? Are we discriminating against polygamists when we say they cannot have five wives? Are we discriminating against the little boy when we say he cannot buy liquor? Where does it stop?
The majority of people in America (probably more than would admit it) do not want marriage to be redefined by homosexuals or anyone else. Where does it stop?
I figure Jesus Camp is a Hollywood movie and I will take a wild guess that they are going to ... oh ... churn out a bunch of nonsense about Christian summer camps. What do you think they are going to teach kids at a Christian summer camp -- how to roll a joint and how to put on a condom? Let me give you some free advice: never judge anything by the way Hollywood presents it. If you are not a Christian (or anything for that matter), all you are going to see is the negatives about it.
I will say it one more time ... we are arguing one issue when, in fact, that is not the real issue. The issue is not same sex marriage. The issue is, homosexuals want validation. They want everyone to accept homosexuality as natural and right. For 90 or 95 percent of the population, that is never going to happen. We could allow same sex marriage on a national level tomorrow and there would be some other issue (like teaching homosexuality is OK in our schools) by the end of the year. Usually, once you start sliding (which we already are), you do not stop until you hit bottom. And, you know what, if we still treated homosexuality for what it is -- a mental abberation -- I bet that percent would be more like 98 or 99. If that 10 year old is led to believe he is right, he may never grow out of his childish thinking. At 10 years old, who knows what to do with that thing between their legs? People turn away from the homo lifestyle every day.
-
GrapeKoolaid said 8 days ago....
I think I should make a clarification here: I don't think it's really the fed gov's job to define or legislate the definition of marriage. To be honest with you, I think it's perverse that the liberal agenda is trying to legislate their morality through legislation.
I said earlier that what two grown people want to do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. I have concerns enough trying to keep my own affairs in order.
-
ALIENated said 8 days ago....
That is why states are voting on it. And a majority of the people want the definition of marriage the way it has always been.
-
GrapeKoolaid said 7 days ago....
Ok. You know how some atheists like secular humanists have their priests, holy books and all the trappings of a religion without God?
How about we give the gay folks all the trappings and legal representation of a marriage as long as we don't call it marriage?
A hollow victory for both sides, I'm sure...
-
ALIENated said 7 days ago....
Yes, because it does not accomplish what they really want -- validation. Everthing they claim to want can be accomplished by other legal means, like hospital visitation, property issues, etc. They want everyone to accept homosexuality as natural and right, which is never going to happen. It is things like this that make me wonder why any Christian or Catholic would call themselves a Democrat.